Robot Wars Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 2
Robot History I'm curious, are we going to compile a series record of each robot's performance? I saw that they had been done on Panic Attack and Roadblock, and I began one on Tornado. I thought I'd add one to Berserk 2 to flesh out the article a bit, and I though that it would be good to have a record of each robots performance in each series. Tell me what you think. Toon Ganondorf (t ' :Eventually yes, I think that would be a good idea, that's why I did the one for Roadblock and Beast of Bodmin. I think it's good to have as much worthwhile information as possible on each page. Christophee 01:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Category:Content These need to be removed from every article, and added instead to the other categories. Is anyone willing to do that? 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :So far, I've just been sorting out categories on articles I've edited for other reasons. Hopefully they'll all be sorted eventually that way. If not, we can do the final few specifically. Christophee 22:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Let's get the record straight After the Notables on my page are done, every robot will be worthy of an article. Notability passes if they competed in a battle. That is it. Any robot can have an article. That is the point of this wiki; information on every robot and battle. Robot articles should have; *An completed infobox (With picture if possible) *A brief introduction. *A Robot History - a brief overview of how the robot performed each series and Extreme. *Information on other, less successful robots from the same team. *Results - Dot point outcomes of each battle *Series Record - How far and whether they participated in each series *Honours - If any. If none, ommit this section. ANY robot is worthy of an article. EVERY robot will get an article. It does not matter if a less significant robot is done first. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' ::I'd like to beg to challenge that statement...any robot is worthy of an article PROVIDED we know its stats. I can think of a few robots whos stats were never actually revealed on the show. I can also think of a small handful (like Pain and Parthian Shot) who didn't compete in a battle. ::I'm in the middle of comprising a small list of the robots that actually competed in the wars. I'm listing them via the most significant robot of that team. CBFan 07:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC) :::Of course. You are correct with that. However, I know websites that will list the stats of every robot from the first four wars, and Series 7 is on Youtube. That leaves 5 and 6. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' ::::All of Series 6 is on YouTube, as are both series of Extreme. The only series we're going to have much of an issue with is that of Series 5. CBFan 08:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC) :::::That's why Wowot is empty. Okay, good news. Okay. Now that we have that settled, I'd hope that robot veterans are the next ones to get articles; robots like Ming, Comengetorix and Cerberus. After that, its a free run. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' I'm glad that's settled. Now hopefully we can have more positive contributions and fewer arguments. I agree with what CBFan says about knowing the stats. Don't start an article on a robot if you don't know its stats. Also, are we including robots that only entered Extreme or the World Championships? And what about robots from other weight categories? Christophee 22:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC) :At the moment, they have to have competed in two or more UK series. After that, other weights and World Competitors can be introduced. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' ::Again, I don't like that rule. That completely defeats the the whole process, and denies robots articles over other robots less significant than them. ::You want an example? Lets take Warhog and Lightning. By your rules, Warhog, who never won a single battle in three attempts, will get an article, whilst Lightning, who made it to the Heat Final, quite convincingly I might add, on its one appearance, won't. How is that fair? CBFan 07:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Toon, D'you mind if I help out? I'm still not going to be a regular user, but things like Templates and Categories I can do. 'GutripperSpeak You know what I means. Any robot is worthy. But I mean robots from Series 1 who lost in the first round and never came back shouldn't get one yet. Oh, and that'd be great, Gutripper. Toon Ganondorf (t ' :Can we take that to mean "Any robot that never won a battle, UK championships or otherwise, shouldn't get one yet"? CBFan 08:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC) ::It depends. A robot like Warhog never won a battle, but it participated in three wars. A robot like Lightning participated in one war and an Extreme, winning about four battles (not sure on that). Both of those two are worthy. However, a robot like...Grunt, who passed the Gauntlet, lost in the Trial and never returned should not get an article for a fair while. Do you see what I'm getting at? If you're not sure, discuss it with me or Christophee. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :::Well, personally, I think the first and foremost deciding feature about how soon a robot gets an article should be judged on battle performance and battle performance alone. After all, that's what makes a robot successful or not. If we use another example, lets use Metalis. Surely you wouldn't give that robot an article purely because it competed in four seperate wars when, if we'll be honest, all four of the team's robots did horrendously badly. And for the record, it was three, not four. CBFan 16:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC) ::::Just do what you think. I may make exceptions later, but for now lets just work on who deserves it. A note for you, though, I plan to do Psychospout and Derek, just to finish off the award winners. They are exceptions, but not going to be two of many. ~~ :::::OK then, I'll do what I think. And what I think I'll do is go down the list as to how many battles a robot won. I am in the middle of composing a small list on all the competitors ever to compete, listing them by their most significant robot. And, of course, I still need to do the Raizer Blade and Mighty Mouse articles. :::::Of course, it would have been great if it was possible to edit the templates. CBFan 20:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC) One time competitors I'm thinking that we should just have a page called Series _ competitors for each series. The articles included would all be so short anyway. Robots like Crocodilatron, Grunt, and Mazakari, who only ever participated in one wars and never won a battle, should just be included in these articles. We would have to make one for each wars, but I think that would prevent a lot of really short articles. What does everyone think? 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 21:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC) :Good idea. Maybe it should be for one-time competitors that didn't make it to at least the heat final. Maybe even some competitors from two series that never won a battle as well. Call it something like 'Minor Series _ competitors'. Christophee 01:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC) ::There would be exceptions I think. Derek and Psychospout should be exempt from the list because they won awards. A robot like Clawed Hopper, the first ever walker to win a battle in the main competition, should get an article. We'd discuss it first. That means, CBFan, if someone sees something they don't like, discuss your reasons for why it should be removed rather than taking it into your own hands. Have we an agreement? 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 05:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC) :::I'm still not convinced on the idea of Derek or Psychosprout getting an article over something that, in all honesty, isn't that much of an achievement. I mean, it's hardly battle related or anything. Couldn't it be too much to ask to simply put it in the little "sub-section" that they won an award, rather than try and draw the impossible out? CBFan 07:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC) :::I'm so busy that I won't get around to it, so we can talk about it another time. That page that you had made seems like a good starter for the series 1 robots, but only ones that didn't return, and didn't make the heat final. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 07:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC) It, not They I know this is going to sound rediculously nitpicky, but because we're referring to the robots, rather than the teams, could we please refer to a robot as "It", not "They" unless its a clusterbot, like Gemini. CBFan 18:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Spelling Just so everyone knows, I think we should establish a way of spelling certain robots. *Sumpthing or Sump Thing (in deliberation) *Invertabrat *Axe Awe (does not have a hyphon) *Barber-Ous *Trouble & Strife Others may be added to this list, but just to keep consistency, we'll use these spellings. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 05:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC) :"Sump Thing" is spelt "Sumpthing" in its latest appearances. It should be kept that way. CBFan 07:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC) ::Christophee and I agreed a long time ago on the spelling. The Series 4 robot was spelled Sump THing, and they did the best. That's my arguement, so we'll discuss it. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :::The success has nothing to do with the name. That's, frankly, quite stupid. It's the same robot, either way around. CBFan 12:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC) ::::In fact, the official Series 4 guide spells it as "Sumpthing", not "Sump Thing" (and certainly not "Sump THing"). And there's no use telling me that Christophee agreed to your way when he clearly isn't fussed. CBFan 12:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC) :::Either one is fine by me. Just mention on the article that it can also be spelt the other way, like on the Invertabrat article. Christophee 14:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC) :::::What happened to this being a "team effort?" You say "I'm saying that's how its spelt, so thats how we will spell it." That is very selfish. Wikia's are team efforts, not dictatorships. Also, the robots names are spelled in capitals on the show. How can you tell? 'GutripperSpeak 23:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC) ::::::Because Toon Ganondorf claimed that he and Christophee agreed for it to be called "Sump Thing", but that was clearly not the case. I'm sorry, but am I the only one who sees Either one is fine by me. Just mention on the article that it can also be spelt the other way, like on the Invertabrat article, right above us? And don't tell lies, I'm saying that's how its most COMMONLY spelt, and that's how we spell it. That does make sense to use the most commonly used name. And I can tell because there's no gap. CBFan 07:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC) For heavens sake, didn't you look on your page? The link is there to the agreement we made. User talk:Toon Ganondorf/Archive 1#Robot names I have to show you. Personally, I don't care what its named, but I'm trying to prove a point. Also, I can't believe that you say that you never speak in ALL CAPs, when the word before it is in CAPS lock. Be consistent. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :I must have looked at my page, because I clearly replied. I frankly don't care how a robot is named either, but I wouldn't mind actually seeing some consistance...for one thing, claiming that you & Christophee agreed to call it "Sump Thing" when his comment clearly states otherwise doesn't really do a great deal. I don't want any more problems between us either, but that means that you need to take what I say into consideration...I have, certainly. :Also, you have an awkward definition of "All Caps". One or two words does not make it "All Caps". The only part of the sentence that uses capitals IS THIS LITTLE SEGMENT HERE. That's not all caps. CBFan 09:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Robot Articles This has just literally come up on the talk page of the, as-of-yet, unconstructed Purple Predator article, and it's something that's worth discussing in more depth here. What do we do with a team which has had two or more robots and they have all performed equally as well (or as badly) as each other? CBFan 15:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC) :Since the team used Purple Predator once, and Granny's Revenge twice (I'm counting Granny's Revenge 1 and Granny's Revenge 2 as the same robot), it should be Granny's Revenge's name on the page. 'RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas 15:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Deleted article Well nice to have met you gentlemen. It was my intention to use this as a basis for creating stubs for some of those missing articles. But I can see I am not wanted, I won't be back. Spinningspark 17:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC) For heavens sake, CBFan, I told you this would happen. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 22:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC) :I have restored this thread which was deleted by CBFan here. I struggle to believe that you allow this behaviour here. If this was Wikipedia it would be totally unacceptable to delete another user's talk page comment (vandalism etc excepted). Not only have my posts been repeatedly deleted but a reply by an administrator was also deleted. What is more, my post to Toon Ganondorf's talk page was also deleted by CBFan. CBFan, in answer to your post on my talk page, I am posting here rather than directly to you because I am seeking wider discussion. I believe it needs wider involvement as you did not appear to be open to discussion. You could have opened a dialogue initially, but instead you chose to delete my article without discussion, so now is the time to ask the opinion of the wider community. Spinningspark 09:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Categorising images I was just wondering whether you guys thought it was worth categorising the images we have like other wikis do. As we've left it so late, it would take bloody ages to categorise all of them, but if we're going to do it we should get it done ASAP. Do you think it's worth the effort and if so, which categories do you think we should have? Christophee (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC) :I did notice that the Super Smash Brothers Wiki has a guy named Bek the Conqueror categorising images frequently. I could probably take charge of this, and the categories I propose are similar to the article categories. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' *UK Series competitors *UK Champions *Semi-Finalists *House Robots *Grand Finalists *People Then, depending on when the photo was taken, we could categorise them into wars. For example; Would be categorised into Series 5, 6 & Extreme 2, and 7 respectively. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 21:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC) :Okay, that sounds great. I'll help out as much as I can once you've created the categories, at least until we've categorised all the images we currently have. Christophee (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Robot redirects Is there any chance that we could start linking robot redirects to the relevent section of a robot's article? For example, the Beast of Bodmin page redirects to Roadblock#Beast of Bodmin so that the user goes directly to the relevant section. It would be great if we could do this with all the relevant redirects and those that we create in future. Christophee (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :I'm going to take care of that now. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 05:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC) ::Done. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 09:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Watercooler I saw the Harry Potter wiki had a forum base called the Wizengamot rather than the Watercooler. I decided to make ours the Pits, because I thought it would be appropriate. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 05:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Awards I have made a group of awards that can be viewed here. At the moment, I am willing to give out some awards, so an Award for Best Design is up for grabs if someone is willing to create the ICU article to an excellent standard. Good luck people! 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 04:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC) :What a fantastic idea. You've really been doing some great work on this wiki recently. I'm really glad I promoted you to bureaucrat as you've shown you really deserve it. Sorry I haven't been around much recently, but I've been starting up a new wiki about The Animals of Farthing Wood so I don't have as much time to spend here as usual. You're doing a great job without me though. Keep it up. Christophee (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC) ::You flatter me. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 11:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Sidebar I've been beating myself across the forehead trying to figure out how to do this for a while, but I figured it out. Hope you all enjoy the much more relevant and improved sidebar. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 12:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC) :I think it looks great, good work. This wiki is really developing very nicely. Christophee (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Wikia Entertainment I think it's about time we added this wiki to the main Wikia Entertainment page. Does anybody know whether we are allowed to just add it or do we have to ask someone for permission to be put on there? Christophee (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC) :That'd be a question for Angela or someone. I can't access my emails because I am not on my laptop, but at an internet outlet in a bank in Samoa. Someone else will have to ask, but that addition would probably attract a great number of new users. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 01:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Wikia user Can we undisable this bot? We disabled it because it welcomed a vandal once, but that was our last vandal. I think the pros outweigh the cons. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 04:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC) :By all means, go ahead and undisable it. I think it will be less work to remove the welcome from a vandal's page than to keep having to welcome new users manually. Do you think we should perhaps add more to the automated welcome message or is it fine as it is? Christophee (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC) ::The new setup means I have no idea how to undisable it, but I think that the current message is fine. And I definately agree with your reasoning. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 22:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC) :::Done. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ''' 02:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)